I somewhat dislike the /proc thing in so far as applications and documentations that assumes _every_ system has a Linuxes /proc structure. But at least Linux didn't invent the /proc idea, just most well known for it.

/opt is defined by the FHS, to me it is largely a waste... But it can have it's uses when desired and /opt is as good a name as any 3-letter combo.

/srv is also in the FHS, a good idea IMHO. My OpenBSD system for example is configured with a /srv/<service>/<service specific files>

for example, /srv/nfs/Videos -> good as place as any to store a big file share that changes so little, it could be RO ;-). Plus it puts in it a fairly obvious place.

/srv for services is no harder to figure out then /usr/share or /var/ either ^_^

Linux "standarts", especially those about dirs or audio subsystem are definitely not the ones that people should go for, its a lot of layers that happen to work instead of one designed facility to do the job done in good manner, the fact that some sh!t is beloved by FHS does not mean that I will take that blindly just because it is aprooved by FHS, same for ISO standarts recently, MICROS~1 did not standarised OOXML, MICROS~1 bought that standart, so if you can buy one no matter how big sh!t it is, the ISO organization becomes useless as a quality determinant.

I also forgot about /sys dir here, we have /proc for all the "kernel stuff" why do we need another one? One big M.E.S.S

__________________religions, worst damnation of mankind"If 386BSD had been available when I started on Linux, Linux would probably never had happened." Linus TorvaldsLinux is not UNIX! Face it! It is not an insult. It is fact: GNU is a recursive acronym for “GNU's Not UNIX”.vermaden's:linksresourcesdeviantartspreadbsd

Recently, I have switched all my installations to virtualized servers ...

... and if anyone has any ideas as to a better environment than what I am using (Linux host, VMware, and BSD guest) please suggest it here in this thread. ...

I've been setting up FreeBSD host with bare minimum installation, and then using the ezjail framework (slightly customized to suit my criteria) to build "virtual machines." Granted, this isn't very sexy, and introduces the rather large draw-back of not being able to limit resources of each VM, but it works for me.

It's a shame that we don't have a whole lot more available. NetBSD supports XEN, so you could use NetBSD host and go from there. XEN support is supposed to be coming soon to FreeBSD.

As I'm working towards my SCSA for Solaris 10, I'm looking more at Solaris Zones (though I don't have Solaris running on any of my servers here at home... hmm... if only I can convince the wife to let me buy a new box).

__________________
I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by fleeing the scene of the accident!

I just started hanging out on the Ubuntu server forums and have noticed a trend I am really dissapointed in. I spent several hours last night trying to convince people on the SERVER forum why they shoud not load a GUI on their server. It was an excercise in futility to say the least. You would think since it was the SERVER forum, at least the experienced users would agree with me but that wasn't the case with most of them. I know this is a symptom of Micro$oft taking over more and more of the server market.

It's refreshing to come here and still see people that know what they are doing and that want to do things the correct way. once they port VMware to BSD, I'm outta the linux space for good. Sadly, I am seeing the dumbing down of Linux as it becomes more popular on the desktop. What do you guys think?

-Tim

Sorry for being a little bit more direct, but this is elitist, ideological rubbish! If this is the dominating opinion within the xBSD-Community I didn't have to wonder any more, why a lot of people think about it as some kind of a sect.

You want more people to use BSD? Forget about!

Or, if you want to take it the other way round - if you want xBSD to prevail as an elitist OS just for the "enlightened" followers of the only (self-)righteous way, then carry on this way. And be sure - M$ & Co. will laugh at you while you remain in your "splendid isolation" with your noses held high!

Again - sorry for my harsh words - but such an arrogant swagger is really annoying.

Sorry for being a little bit more direct, but this is elitist, ideological rubbish! If this is the dominating opinion within the xBSD-Community I didn't have to wonder any more, why a lot of people think about it as some kind of a sect.

You want more people to use BSD? Forget about!

Or, if you want to take it the other way round - if you want xBSD to prevail as an elitist OS just for the "enlightened" followers of the only (self-)righteous way, then carry on this way. And be sure - M$ & Co. will laugh at you while you remain in your "splendid isolation" with your noses held high!

Again - sorry for my harsh words - but such an arrogant swagger is really annoying.

Please, be direct. I want to point out here that we are talking about SERVERS, not the desktop here. Servers were not meant to have GUI loaded. They perform their functions much better without one.

As to whether I want more people to use *BSD, personally if it means it is going to become like what I experienced over there,, then no, I don't want more people using it. I am using BSD for enterprise, mission critical applications, not serving torrents. This is where the Linux community seems to have a problem - where to draw the line between playing and serious computing. To me, the *BSDs seem to be more serious in the server space. Insisting on loading a GUI on a SERVER tells me not only are your admin skills deficient, but you also don't want to learn any either.

I've been setting up FreeBSD host with bare minimum installation, and then using the ezjail framework (slightly customized to suit my criteria) to build "virtual machines." Granted, this isn't very sexy, and introduces the rather large draw-back of not being able to limit resources of each VM, but it works for me.

It's a shame that we don't have a whole lot more available. NetBSD supports XEN, so you could use NetBSD host and go from there. XEN support is supposed to be coming soon to FreeBSD.

As I'm working towards my SCSA for Solaris 10, I'm looking more at Solaris Zones (though I don't have Solaris running on any of my servers here at home... hmm... if only I can convince the wife to let me buy a new box).

Well I knew someone would probably bring this up, but for what I am doing it didn't seem to fit the need. Granted, I have never set up ezjails and have no experience but things like cloning machines and hardware independence are important in the work that I do because it save time. If one of my web company's servers go down, I can load the VM on ANY machine running VMware and be up and running in a few minutes. I don't think that would be too easy with jails. We are just behind the times when it comes to virtualization. If I was a developer, I would gladly donate some time to fixing this but unfortunately I'm just a hardware guy.

Well, going back to your earlier post, about being ignored, reminds me of the old saying, You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think--errm, no, that's not right, you can lead a horse to water, but can't make them drink, whatever. Or, like Marcus Aurelius wrote, in 167 AD, If you've done a good deed, isn't that reward enough? Why are you expecting gratitude as well.

It happens all the time. Think of the old cartoon, a woman asking her husband why he's still up--he's typing away frantically, saying, "Someone got something wrong on the Internet." I try to give newcomer friendly answers and put up pages when it seems a good idea.

For example, I've become, through necessity, somewhat of an expert on the Atheros AR5007EG card in Linux. I've seen people post about their 5006 card, just put a link to my page, watched the thread go on as they can't install ndiswrapper, and then, 10 posts later, realize it's an AR5007EG, as I'd mentioned, but just don't worry about it. I don't get upset. Maybe it's age.

As was said, Ubuntu's a bad choice, as it attracts so many who are just bored or fed up with Windows, even in the server section. My admiration goes to the experienced on those forums who keep their patiences with the newcomers. They have one way of thinking, and that includes GUIs on servers.

You'd probably get more appreciation on the Fedora forums (as well as people who will ignore it or snidely say, Yes, but I want a GUI.) Personally, as I think I said somewhere in this thread, I really don't understand why RH makes their distribution so gnome-centric.

As for defending your use of Linux and VMware, as you say, it's mission critical, and you're not doing yourself or your customers a favor trying something that you don't know as well. As my work these days is CentOS centric, I'm actually planning to move my server stuff from my aging BSD box to a CentOS box, but am trying to figure out the closest thing to a jail. I'll probably wind up going with Vserver. (It's the same idea, it's not complete virtualization in the sense of VMware or VirtualBox, more of a super chroot.)

So, I wouldn't even waste time worrying about those who ignore your pearls of wisdom. There are more important things to worry about, such as your customers and paying the rent.

It's nice to be appreciated, but, especially with Ubuntu, it's a different sort of mndset. It doesn't even mean they are wrong. I suspect that those who ignore you aren't working with real production machines, or the first part of their post would have consisted of explanations as to why they want X on a server, since it usually isn't considered best practice.

Oh no, I see all that old age (and all the drugs you used at woodstock) is beginning to affect your brain!

Ok, seriously.

Who cares?
If people want to use a GUI on their server, why should we care? They use a GUI, we use a commandline, and we're all friends.
If people ask for help here, they will generally get "commandline answers", and on Ubuntu forums they will generally get "GUI answers" ... It's different, but not better or worse IMO ...

__________________
UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things.

Oh no, I see all that old age (and all the drugs you used at woodstock) is beginning to affect your brain!

Ok, seriously.

Who cares?
If people want to use a GUI on their server, why should we care? They use a GUI, we use a commandline, and we're all friends.
If people ask for help here, they will generally get "commandline answers", and on Ubuntu forums they will generally get "GUI answers" ... It's different, but not better or worse IMO ...

You DO have a point here. I wasn't being rabid about it, just "suggesting" it may take less resources among other things. they could always find out for themselves, but they may end up blaming Linux in general instead of realizing they should have been at run level 3.

If people want to use a GUI on their server, why should we care? They use a GUI, we use a commandline, and we're all friends.
If people ask for help here, they will generally get "commandline answers", and on Ubuntu forums they will generally get "GUI answers" ... It's different, but not better or worse IMO ...

I am using BSD for enterprise, mission critical applications, not serving torrents. This is where the Linux community seems to have a problem - where to draw the line between playing and serious computing.

Tim, I think, it depends on the community we are looking at. Generalizing doesn't serve us well in this case. As others have pointed out above - Ubuntu is targeted at the Desktop-User, not the professional Server-Admin. These are very different communities with very different aims. To put it in a comparable picture: It's like discussing a Formula One problem in a Ford forum. Yes, Ford builds cars (some even may be fast ones) - but they're totaly different from a Formula One car.
"The" Linux community handles server-questions as good or bad as "the" xBSD community. You will find beginners with a small handmade homeserver for holiday-pictures or -films and you will find professionals who have to run the servers of a company. And the latter ones, I guess, would prefer specialized OS's, like Red Hat Enterprise, SuSe Enterprise or Solaris. With these operating systems you buy professional support, liability and warranty. And you won't need to discuss a problem in a forum with 16 years old kids, who feel geeky about running their small homeservers with a fancy non-windos OS.

Tim, I think, it depends on the community we are looking at. Generalizing doesn't serve us well in this case. As others have pointed out above - Ubuntu is targeted at the Desktop-User, not the professional Server-Admin. These are very different communities with very different aims. To put it in a comparable picture: It's like discussing a Formula One problem in a Ford forum. Yes, Ford builds cars (some even may be fast ones) - but they're totaly different from a Formula One car.
"The" Linux community handles server-questions as good or bad as "the" xBSD community. You will find beginners with a small handmade homeserver for holiday-pictures or -films and you will find professionals who have to run the servers of a company. And the latter ones, I guess, would prefer specialized OS's, like Red Hat Enterprise, SuSe Enterprise or Solaris. With these operating systems you buy professional support, liability and warranty. And you won't need to discuss a problem in a forum with 16 years old kids, who feel geeky about running their small homeservers with a fancy non-windos OS.

While I understand what you are saying, you may not know that Ubuntu makes a server distribution, that comes WITHOUT a GUI. Here is what Canonical says on the front page of their Server Edition web page:

Quote:

The Ubuntu Server Edition is changing the server market for businesses by delivering the best of free software on a stable, fully supported and secure platform. In the two years since initial launch Ubuntu can now be found in hundreds of organisations across the world delivering key services reliably, predictably and economically. Ubuntu Server Edition is an energy efficient, low memory and disk footprint operating system that helps build server functions that respect our environment with no compromise on agility and versatility.

The Ubuntu Server Edition can become the backbone of many of the services that a typical business needs to run to be successful. With no license fees, an expanding ecosystem, minimal maintenance, a growing community of peers and references, Ubuntu Server Edition is making many organisations reconsider how they use Linux for their information technology needs.

Now that sure doesn't sound like a home server to me. The section of the forums I was on was the SERVER edition forum. Wouldn't you think all that home user stuff would be somewhere else? This was the point I was making. I am actually running their server edition in one of my client's offices. So far I like it very much precisely because it doesn't come woth all the junk, so your statement about Ubuntu being geared towards home users is not true in the case of the server edition and this is what I am talking about.

After reading through what is on Canonical's site I came upon this gem in the security section of the features of the Server Edition:

Quote:

No X server by design

By design, Ubuntu Server Edition does not include an X server. This is a deliberate choice as we believe that most servers should be serviced remotely, are safer without the addition of code that needs direct communication from user space to hardware, and should not be used as a desktop by their administrator.

"So I applaud the Ubuntu team’s common sense (and courage) in keeping the X Window System out of the default installation of Ubuntu Server."
--Mick Bauer in April 2008 Linux Journal - "Security Features in Ubuntu Server"

Or, like Marcus Aurelius wrote, in 167 AD, If you've done a good deed, isn't that reward enough? Why are you expecting gratitude as well.

I was all prepared to go into a rant about how making a comment on your peception of things is viewed as elitist, is a problem rooted in the politically correct/orwellian/new speak world when a qoute from Marcus Aurelius arose and restored my faith in humanity...

__________________
"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." -Philip K. Dick

<rant>
I evangelize two things that are important to me, and have spent too much time trying to show people the error of their ways. Mo$t of the$e people are noob$ or, mo$tly, another $ort. But, thi$ other $ort:

Is just too frustrating to deal with. They drink from a firehose and are untrainable. It gets me all upset and, as of just last night, I gave up. I deleted all links to such forums, resigned from one board I mod, and this, now, is the only place I check on every day.

Some people like to watch the pretty, blinking lights and some of us need to get the job done the best way.
</rant>

While I understand what you are saying, you may not know that Ubuntu makes a server distribution, that comes WITHOUT a GUI. Here is what Canonical says on the front page of their Server Edition web page:

Now that sure doesn't sound like a home server to me. The section of the forums I was on was the SERVER edition forum. Wouldn't you think all that home user stuff would be somewhere else? This was the point I was making. I am actually running their server edition in one of my client's offices. So far I like it very much precisely because it doesn't come woth all the junk, so your statement about Ubuntu being geared towards home users is not true in the case of the server edition and this is what I am talking about.

-Tim

Ok, Tim, you're right - I didn't knew this! It makes your argument much more plausible and I understand your point. I've checked the ubuntu-website and have to admit - I didn't knew they have a professional server edition with support and so on. In this case I can only say, that I don't know, why a professional admin should want a GUI for his work. But that should be the decision of those who work with it. Maybe they have to pay a high price for it, maybe not.
My main point was and is, that it doesn't depend on the system you are using, but on your training and professionalism - maybe it's even a question of apprenticeship? But I don't think it's a question of using Linux or xBSD (or even M$ or Solaris).

I just wanted to point out that I work with many Linux guys... and none of them have GUIs on their servers. I think we should not blame a whole community for only a percentage of it's users, nor should you say all BSD users all elitist because a few are.

__________________
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."

I think that, no matter how you group people together, you'll always have a wide range of personalities within any given group. It cannot be avoided, because people are people. Sure, within any given group, one personality type may be more represented than in the general population, but that's the nature of the beast. You'll always have the experts, the newbies, the bigots, the impatient, the teachers, the disciples, the willfully ignorant, the knowledge-hungry, the loquatious, the lurkers, the braggarts, the humble, etc.. Generally speaking, in a community, like attracts like. Or, as the old saying goes, Birds of a feather flock together.

Ultimately, it is wisest not to assume that one person, or even one group, is a fair representation of the whole. The posters on the Ubuntu forums are not necessarily representative of Ubuntu users as a whole, just as the posters on this forum are not representative of BSD users as a whole.

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to be rude or anything like that with my first post. But now I get what you're saying. I thought you were overall talking about Ubuntu (desktop version), but now that you mentioned that you were in the server community in Ubuntu I agree with what you're saying. There isn't much need for GUI when dealing with servers (my opinion at least).

Quote:

Sorry this post is so long, and if anyone has any ideas as to a better environment than what I am using (Linux host, VMware, and BSD guest) please suggest it here in this thread. I should mention I am a VMware partner. I have played with the others but they seem less enterprise ready.

I've used CentOS (server/host) with a couple of servers where I work at. But then again I've never used any other Linux distro with a live server. So I can't really say what's good and what's not.

I suspect--though of course, I don't know--that probably, some of the folks in that Ubuntu server section are again, kids who just want to do something different--wow, server, that's even cooler.
This isn't a putdown of the Ubuntu community--as I said in my first post on this thread, I think we owe them gratitude for their numbers and enthusiasm, which almost certainly begin to make hardware and software manufacturers think a little more about opensource support.

You'll note how busy the Ubuntu forums are. Using CentOS as contrast, as it's really more, despite the GUI aspects, more of a server O/S, there's a lot less traffic and most of the questions are either intelligent ones or ignored.

Conversely, on Ubuntu forums, I once got into a discussion of samurai vs. ninja and who would win. (The probable answer is that if one studies Japanese history, the lines were far more blurred than they are in video games and movies, so there's no real answer.)
One doesn't often, if ever, find such discussion on CentOS forums--people are too busy and are using it for production.
There's probably no such discussion on Debian mailing lists either--they're too serious--the CentOS people have a sense of humor, but are busy.